Wiz Kids Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811046715
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3127395900
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Racquet Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$745,320
Expenses
$1,212,384
Assets
$140,355
Liabilities
$787,777

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nathan Legardy (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nathan Legardy (Executive Director): $162,476 total reported compensation
  • Kimberly Loftis (Chief Financial Officer): $63,995 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

1. To provide scholarships and financial assistance to students pursuing higher education including college education. 2. To organize and offer summer camps and enrichment programming in various areas such as academics music sports creative arts and other educational fields aimed at fostering personal growth and skill development among students. 3. To establish and operate centers for youth development including year-round facilities that offer academic enrichment community cultivation for teens and advanced sports programming providing comprehensive support and opportunities for holistic development. 4. To provide scholarships and financial aid to students participating in the organizations summer camps enrichment programs and year-round facilities ensuring equitable access to educational and developmental resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

Offer kid appropriate programming in various areas such as academics music sports creative arts and other educational fields

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 34
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 67.3%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -62.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.61; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -38.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 67.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $816K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 2 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 41 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.